We often hear "there is no evidence for Creationism" or "there are mountains of evidence for Evolution". These two statements reveal a lack of understanding of exactly what evidence is. A standard definition for the word "evidence" is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
A mistake Evolutionists make is that they often either don't know, or conveniently forget, that both Creationists and Evolutionists have exactly the same facts. There is nothing a Creationist has that an Evolutionist doesn't. There is nothing an Evolutionist has that a Creationist doesn't. We all have the same facts. The problem is that Evolutionists assume facts speak for themselves, whereas Creationists understand that they do not. If facts spoke for themselves, there would be no such thing as a lawyer. This is why the standard of evidence in a criminal court case is not "proven guilty", but "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt." (In a civil lawsuit, the standard is the "balance of probabilities", i.e. it is more likely than not (51%) that the defendant is liable. Evidence is slightly less relevant in a civil suit).
So, the question we must ask is whether or not we can prove our views on origins beyond reasonable doubt? Are there any facts that indicate whether or not Creation or Evolution are true or valid? Focusing entirely on Creationism, the answer is absolutely! Quite a few, in fact. So many that despite the fact my Bible tells me to always be ready to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15), I have such a wealth to draw on that, left to myself, I usually have to stop and think before I give one. For this post, I'm going to limit myself to just four.
The first is the cosmological argument. This argument, though it is as old as atheism, is now further backed by science. There's a reason it has endured for so long: It is irrefutable. The cosmological argument does not specifically prove that the Biblical God exists, but it is strong indication that the universe as a whole must have had a finite and supernatural beginning.
Consider the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe remains constant. It can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted between forms. In other words, speaking from a purely natural perspective, matter and energy are eternal. One conclusion we cannot draw is that matter and energy actually are eternal. This is mathematically impossible. To illustrate this, picture a year. Just one year. This is easy to do. A year can pass. So, let's pretend you are exactly one year old. That would mean that one year had passed since your birth. Now let's do the same, but you aren't a year old, you are infinity. This, obviously, cannot be done. You cannot have an infinite past. In order for today to exist, there has to be a finite number of yesterdays.
Thus, there are only three logical conclusions:
1. Natural law changes. But if natural law changes, we can't really do science, because what if everything we've learned since 1500 A.D. suddenly becomes outdated tomorrow?
2. Everything we know about science is wrong. This is a valid option, it is totally ok to suggest that mankind has gaps in our knowledge that may make us consider even the most invalid of hypotheses as laws. We do it with Evolution, for example. That is an invalid hypothesis, yet Evolutionists still call it a theory. But as it stands, we either know that the first law of thermodynamics is true, or at least think we do. And of course, in any sensible discussion, we should argue from what we think we know, not what we might know in the future. Arguing from the fact that one day, we might discover something so extremely earth shattering as to change our minds about one of the most well established facts of science is just clutching at straws.
3. The universe had a supernatural origin.
Thus, the cosmological argument shows that unless we are willing to say science is worth about as much as a rotten can of tuna, the universe had a supernatural origin.
The second law of thermodynamics also gives us a strong indication as to the validity of Creationism. The second law of thermodynamics, often described as the law of "entropy", states that in any closed system, which the aforementioned first law tells us the universe absolutely is, the total amount of matter and energy eventually reaches its most probable distribution. This is why your coffee will eventually grow cold if you forget to drink it, but your beer will get warm. The temperature of each drink approaches what is called "thermal equilibrium" with the room. I.e. there is no heat exchange between the two.
The law of entropy does not work in reverse. Entropy increases, entropy does not decrease. And yet, the universe has not reached thermal equilibrium. The law of entropy effectively states that the universe is winding down, but the question is how did it get wound up? There are three logical conclusions:
1. Entropy worked differently in the past, again hitting the problem that science is worthless.
2. We don't know enough about entropy. Again, valid, but desperate.
3. The universe was supernaturally wound up.
Furthermore, the universe is not just a big ball of heated matter gradually dispersing across the universe. There is order in the chaos. And a very beautiful order it is, too. Our own solar system works like a machine. Almost mechanically. This fact so clearly demonstrates design that the Creationist scientist Isaac Newton, whom modern Evolutionists assure me can't have been a real scientist because he believed the Bible, once had an atheistic friend, to whom he presented a model of the solar system. He could not convince the atheist that the toy had no creator, and asked his friend that, since the vastly inferior toy could only have been created, should a scientist not also conclude that the system it is based on would also be created?
Bringing it down to earth a bit, we clearly have a well designed planet. It's the only place in the entire universe known to have all the specific conditions required to support life. And support life it does. Quite a diversity, in fact. And that life is extremely well designed. In fact, so obvious is this design that in his book "The Blind Watchmaker", Richard Dawkins writes "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (emphasis mine).
Not only do living organisms give the appearance of design, human beings actually copy them for our own designs. It is a practice known as "biomimetics", which, when Evolutionists do it, is effectively plagiarism. Scientists look at the natural world, copy or find inspiration from it, make comparatively pitiful designs, then say "I made this, but no one made the thing I based it on".
But life isn't simple. It is all based on DNA. DNA is the most complex language system in all the known universe. So complex, in fact, that geneticists have a long road ahead of them. God has given them a lot of homework.
Now, basic logic tells us that irreducibly and specifically complex things do not just come into existence. David Wood, in his inspiring testimony, tells us that just before he converted, he reasoned that if someone told him a simple wall had no designer, he'd have slapped them, and yet life is even more miraculous, yet he believed no one designed it.
Irreducible and specific systems do not come into being without a designer. Literally never. Focusing entirely on DNA, we can construct the following syllogism:
Premise 1: All language systems were intelligently designed.
Premise 2: DNA is a language system.
Conclusion: DNA was intelligently designed.
Alternatively, we could start being extremely sceptical of any claim that anything in the world was intelligently designed. But is this reasonable? Is it reasonable to doubt that someone built the walls of your house? What about the watch you might be wearing? Or the device upon which you are reading this? If it is unreasonable to doubt that someone made all these things, which when compared to nature are rather shoddy, I think it is perfectly valid to say that intelligent design is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
All of this evidence points us away from Evolution and towards a designer, but that still leaves us with the question of which designer? Initially, I said I'd limit myself to just three/four pieces of evidence, but I want to go a bit further. The designer didn't just create everything and pin us on the fridge until we inevitably fall off and get forgotten about. He revealed exactly who He is to us.
Humanity believes in a range of gods, and has historically believed in many more. But of those contenders for the throne, only one of them had the stones to show up and sit in it. The Lord God of Israel repeatedly stepped down into history, verifying His claims with miracle after miracle. From fearsome judgements to life-changing (and life-returning) healings, Yahweh left no doubt as to who He is.
Most astonishing of all His signs is that God did not always choose spectacular ways to show up. It wasn't always burning bushes, pillars of fire and smoke, or shimmering angels that knocked down an army. Rather, there was a time when God entered creation as a helpless baby boy. That boy grew up, lived a sinless life, performed many great miracles, and was eventually put to death on a cross. But He didn't stay dead. After a very short time, He stood up, and but for the scars from the nails that He hung from, and the spear that was thrust into His side to verify His death, He was fully healed.
Through His resurrection, Jesus once and for all settled the debate as to who God is. But He did far more than that. His death had a purpose: The forgiveness of sins. See, God is a just God. When He created us, He gave us conditions for keeping the life He gave, and we keep violating those conditions every day. What is the logical penalty for violating the conditions of life? Losing that life. But on the cross, Jesus took that punishment for us. We can now be fully reconciled to God, and all it takes is faith. If we confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord, and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead, we will be saved. Nothing seems more unreasonable to doubt than that the God who literally conquered death can fulfil that promise to you.